Skip to main content

View Diary: Romney tax plan would crush charitable giving (22 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Tax break encourages employers to provide coverage (0+ / 0-)

    And encourages employees to sign up/accept coverage.  Employer provided coverage is a big piece of the health care puzzle.  If it becomes taxable (and assuming Obamacare repeal)  employers will be less likely to offer it and many employees will want to drop out--especially younger healthy people who don't want to pay tax on something they don't see as particularly valuable.
    Not a good scenario.  Net effect=fewer people with insurance.  
    Employers also negotiate/navigate the whole private insurance mess -- presumably providing some cost controls.
    Folks with government-provided insurance (Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) also don't pay tax on their coverage or benefits.  Should that be taxed?
    Working for an employer that doesn't provide coverage --and if you're not eligible for any government coverage--does suck as most people in that position are not able to get a deduction.  But taking the tax break away from millions of working middle-class Americans doesn't help and probably makes things worse overall.   The argument should be for a better tax break for people in the individual market, not taxing employer provided coverage.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site